“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Benjamin FranklinFlock cameras have become an ignition point for both the left and the right. Even the ACLU, hardly a bastion of protection for every individual right, is standing in opposition to what is plainly the pre-crime surveillance of innocent citizens.
What Flock cameras collect
Flock’s automatic license plate reader cameras are not like ordinary traffic cameras. The technology records cars that come into view and catalogs details including a vehicle’s make, model, color, license plate number and other visible characteristics. That information can then become searchable evidence across a large network of participating agencies. Flock describes its license plate recognition system as a tool that helps investigators find vehicle evidence faster. The ACLU argues that Flock and similar ALPR systems create a nationwide mass-surveillance apparatus with inadequate transparency, oversight and accountability.The Fourth Amendment problem
You’ve heard of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution:“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”America’s founders understood the dangers of government overreach and specifically limited unrestricted searches and seizures. Yet Flock cameras – just one company’s system among many – can be used to gather information about our movements without individual consent or a judicial warrant. In my view, that turns the Fourth Amendment on its head. The government should have to justify tracking a person. An innocent person should not have to justify why the government should stop tracking him.
When a surveillance lead becomes an accusation
Worse, these cameras can pull innocent people into criminal investigations. In Colorado, Chrisanna Elser was accused of stealing a package after police used Flock camera records to identify her vehicle. She ultimately gathered her own video evidence showing that she was not the thief. InvestigateTV reported that the case was dropped, but only after Elser spent weeks proving her innocence. That is not how our system is supposed to work. She was treated as guilty until proven innocent.Thirteen days in jail for the wrong vehicle
Twenty-three-year-old Lindsey Isaacs nearly had her life destroyed after authorities accused her in connection with a fatal Florida crash. A Flock camera had recorded her black Dodge Durango near the scene, but witnesses described a maroon Durango, and physical evidence pointed away from her vehicle. Isaacs spent 13 days in jail before being released. Prosecutors later dropped the charges, and another person was charged. WESH reported that the Flock record was part of the arrest case, while additional evidence ultimately cleared Isaacs. A camera hit may generate a lead. It is not proof of guilt, proof of who was driving or even proof that investigators have identified the correct vehicle.Abuse is not hypothetical
We also should not forget the public officials who have used surveillance systems to track people for personal reasons. In North Carolina, officer Elizabeth Snowman was accused of using Flock cameras to track her boyfriend’s ex-wife. WCCB reported that an audit uncovered at least 31 alleged searches. The problem is not merely whether the technology occasionally makes an error. A surveillance network this powerful invites mission creep and misuse. Giving government a searchable map of ordinary people’s movements means trusting every authorized user, every agency and every safeguard, every time.It is time to shut down warrantless mass surveillance
The evidence is in. Flock surveillance systems are error-prone, vulnerable to abuse and fundamentally at odds with the presumption of innocence. The promise of safety cannot become a blank check for monitoring everyone who drives down a public road. It is past time to shut down warrantless Flock surveillance and every system like it. At a minimum, no agency should be able to search a person’s movements without probable cause, strict access controls, short retention periods, independent audits and meaningful consequences for misuse.The views expressed in this guest commentary are those of the author.
Sources and further reading
- 4Liberty Network: Austin Petersen discusses Flock cameras with Alex Stein
- Flock Safety: License Plate Reader Cameras
- ACLU: Get the Flock Out
- Deseret News: The left and right have found a common enemy in Flock cameras
- InvestigateTV: Who’s watching the watchers?
- WESH: Wrongfully arrested woman speaks after charges are dropped
- WCCB: Officer accused of misusing Flock cameras
Leave a Reply